Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[Raymond Hall]

Bill C-13 received Royal Assent today.

It is now official. The repeal will come into force one year from today. Efffective December 15, 2012, the mandatory retirement exemption to the Canadian Human Rights Act will no longer exist. Any individual working in the federal sector, after that date, cannot have his or her employment terminated on the basis of age.

For Air Canada employees, that means that any pilot who acquires the age of 60 on or after December 1, 2012, and any other Air Canada employee who acquires the age of 65 on or after December 1, 2012, will be entitled to remain employed until a date of their own choosing.

It's over.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... Id=5145722

Bill C-13 Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

Royal Assent

 Royal Assent

Statutes of Canada: 2011, c. 24

2011-12-15

[duranium]

This was a longtime coming, now it is reality. Next war to be won, the CHRT ongoing affairs. As Jackie Gleason would have said " How sweet it is "

[ram]

"it's over" ??

Really Ray...Do you really believe that?
Various arguments are still ongoing and you know it!

[Norwegianwood]

"it's over" ??

Really Ray...Do you really believe that?
Various arguments are still ongoing and you know it!

OMG!!!! that sand box must be really, really deep and you with your head at the very bottom

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night

[TheStig]

For Air Canada employees, that means that any pilot who acquires the age of 60 on or after December 1, 2012, and any other Air Canada employee who acquires the age of 65 on or after December 1, 2012, will be entitled to remain employed until a date of their own choosing.

Raymond, why 65?

[North Shore]

Raymond, by extension, does that also apply to all other Canadian workers? My knowledge of the law extends about as far as parking and speeding tickets , but I'm aware of the concept of setting a precedent. Does this then set a precedent that could be used elsewhere?

Thanks.

[777longhaul]

The age 65 is for ALL other employees at AC. Only pilots are forced, (were) retired at age 60. The new law, covers ALL employees in the Federal Sector. That is over 800K employees. AC was swept up in the new law, like it or not, by some and/or all.

Air Canada is a Federally Regulated Company.

This puts the Federal Govt, and the Provincial govts on the same page, with, basically, the same laws, in all of Canada, for all Canadians. Including, are you ready for it, ......yes, yes,....even, acpa pilots at AC.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond, why 65?

The ACPA collective agreement incorporates by reference the provisions the provisions of the "Air Canada Pension Plan Pilots" that requires termination of pilots on the first day of the calendar month following which each pilot acquires the age of 60.

There are four other unions at Air Canada that have collective agreements with the employer. Some of those agreements specifiy retirement at the "normal age of retirement," which for them is age 65. At least one of those collective agreements does not require termination of employment at the normal age of retirement, but nevertheless, members of that union (or those unions) have been subject to a "policy" of mandatory retirement which they have condoned, at the "normal age of retirement," which has been agreed upon by both the respective union(s) and the employer as age 65.

Some of these facts have changed only recently, due to arbitration awards that have interfered with the employer's and the unions' ability to agree on the termination of employment of employees on the basis of age, subsequent to the Federal Court decision 2011 FC 120 in the Vilven-Kelly dispute, wherein the Court dismissed ACPA's judicial review of the Tribuna's finding that the mandatory retirement exemption in Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA was unconstitutional, and therefore of no force and effect.

The arbitrator issued an order for those unions to temporarily stop terminating employees, pending the final outcome of the issues in the Vilven-Kelly Charter challenge before the courts.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond, by extension, does that also apply to all other Canadian workers? Does this then set a precedent that could be used elsewhere?

You want to distinguish between statutory law and judge-created law. The latter creates precedent. The former is simple, straight forward law like "thow shall not steal (Criminal Code, interpreted)." This law is of the former variety, not the latter. It is binding law. Simple straightforward binding law.

The unions and the airlines, since the introduction of this exemption in 1978, have been able to avoid the general prohibition against age discrimination in the statute by taking advantage of this special exemption. The exemption is now being repealed, so now, the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age will be binding, regardless of the legal challenges to the formerly valid exemption.

In other words, workers in the federal jurisdiction who come under the provisions of the CHRA, such as those in the transportation industries, the financial industries, and the communications industries, will now be subject to this law and not subject to retirement at any arbitrary age.

Electricians, plumbers, dentists and others who come under the jurisdiction of the provincial laws are not affected by this change in federal law. But provincial age discrimination laws protected them long ago. This repeal has the effect of bringing the workers in the federal sector into line with those in the provincial sectors.

[Morry Bund]

Various arguments are still ongoing and you know it!

How did you make out the last time that you argued with the tax man? Is there any difference here? I doubt it. Federal law is federal law. Get over it, for heaven's sake. It is time to move on!

[MackTheKnife]

"it's over" ??

Really Ray...Do you really believe that?
Various arguments are still ongoing and you know it!

Ever hear this song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo


Another one gone, Another one gone, Another one bites the dust !!


ACPA? Are you ready?? Are you ready for this??



OR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpn8MANhdLU

Some of the lyrics are so appropriate one would almost think ACPA commissioned this song for Queen to record.


"It's the terror of knowing what this world is about"

"Pray tomorrow"

"Turned away from it all like a blind man"

"Sat on a fence but it don't work"

"Chippin' around - kick my brains around the floor"

"These are the days it never rains but it pours"

"Insanity laughs under pressure we're cracking"

[yycflyguy]

Raymond, why 65?

The ACPA collective agreement incorporates by reference the provisions the provisions of the "Air Canada Pension Plan Pilots" that requires termination of pilots on the first day of the calendar month following which each pilot acquires the age of 60.

There are four other unions at Air Canada that have collective agreements with the employer. Some of those agreements specifiy retirement at the "normal age of retirement," which for them is age 65. At least one of those collective agreements does not require termination of employment at the normal age of retirement, but nevertheless, members of that union (or those unions) have been subject to a "policy" of mandatory retirement which they have condoned, at the "normal age of retirement," which has been agreed upon by both the respective union(s) and the employer as age 65.

Some of these facts have changed only recently, due to arbitration awards that have interfered with the employer's and the unions' ability to agree on the termination of employment of employees on the basis of age, subsequent to the Federal Court decision 2011 FC 120 in the Vilven-Kelly dispute, wherein the Court dismissed ACPA's judicial review of the Tribuna's finding that the mandatory retirement exemption in Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA was unconstitutional, and therefore of no force and effect.

The arbitrator issued an order for those unions to temporarily stop terminating employees, pending the final outcome of the issues in the Vilven-Kelly Charter challenge before the courts.

So in this ongoing debate, it was always argued by the flypast60 group that the CBA had no bearing on CHR issues. I guess it does.

It was always my view that there would be a date drawn in the sand for abolishing mandatory retirement. I guess there is.

Will Vilven-Kelly return the money that they "won" before their case was overturned? Didn't think so.

[Rockie]

Will Vilven-Kelly return the money that they "won" before their case was overturned? Didn't think so.

I encourage you to look at why their case was overturned before thinking you've seen the last of them. The person who made the ruling forgot to apply any of the Supreme Court BFOR requirements in reaching his decision.

Ooops.

[yycflyguy]

Will Vilven-Kelly return the money that they "won" before their case was overturned? Didn't think so.

I encourage you to look at why their case was overturned before thinking you've seen the last of them. The person who made the ruling forgot to apply any of the Supreme Court BFOR requirements in reaching his decision.

Ooops.

I know, I know. Any time there was a ruling against flypast60 it was obviously erroneous. Stupid judges.

[Understated]

So in this ongoing debate, it was always argued by the flypast60 group that the CBA had no bearing on CHR issues.

I didn’t read that from any submissions that I have seen the Fly Past crowd post here. What I did read was that they said that the collective agreement could not supersede the human rights laws. Rather, it must comply with them. That’s what the arbitrator is saying, as I understand it--because the court has ruled the mandatory retirement provision invalid, he, as a result of his authority to decide collective bargaining interpretation issues, is ordering them at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of the litigation.

If the court had have said that the mandatory retirement provision was valid, instead of invalid, he obviously would not have ordered them temporarily reinstated. He is only applying the law, as it is his duty to do. The arbitrator must apply the provisions of the collective agreement. With the mandatory retirement provision gone (at least unless or until the court’s decision is overturned on appeal, which may or may not ever happen) the collective agreement does not allow the union to terminate the employment of anyone based on age, because that violates the provisions of the law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age.

Right? That is the way that I see it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

ACPA knows this, and that could very well be why it is refusing to file grievances on behalf of their own members. Even temporary reinstatement is the beginning of the end, because the precious career progression of those who are still left in the chairs when the music stops is more important than ultimately losing the fight and paying damages.

So Will Vilven-Kelly return the money that they "won" before their case was overturned? Didn't think so.

I think the more appropriate question to ask, is “If Air Canada and/or ACPA are so confident that the BFOR decision will be upheld, why haven’t they asked for their money back?”

[Rockie]

I know, I know. Any time there was a ruling against flypast60 it was obviously erroneous. Stupid judges.

Please don't take my word for it. Look up what three requirements must be met in the Supreme Court mandated test to satisfy a BFOR, then look at the VK BFOR ruling to see if any of those requirements were even mentioned much less adhered to. The information is readily available so it shouldn't be too hard.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

[yycflyguy]

So in this ongoing debate, it was always argued by the flypast60 group that the CBA had no bearing on CHR issues.

So Will Vilven-Kelly return the money that they "won" before their case was overturned? Didn't think so.

I think the more appropriate question to ask, is “If Air Canada and/or ACPA are so confident that the BFOR decision will be upheld, why haven’t they asked for their money back?”

I read they considered it. Decided against asking for their money back because after legal expenses it would have been a wash. I think that was a mistake.

[Understated]

I read they considered it. Decided against asking for their money back because after legal expenses it would have been a wash.

Where did you read that? There was nothing in any of the information that I saw go out to the members. You obviously know more about this than you are letting on. And if what you say is correct, that they considered it, you must have obviously swallowed that lame excuse, for what are the legal expenses involved in sending a letter to them to tell them to pay the money back? That is one expensive lawyer's letter!

[yycflyguy]

I read they considered it. Decided against asking for their money back because after legal expenses it would have been a wash.

Where did you read that? There was nothing in any of the information that I saw go out to the members. You obviously know more about this than you are letting on. And if what you say is correct, that they considered it, you must have obviously swallowed that lame excuse, for what are the legal expenses involved in sending a letter to them to tell them to pay the money back? That is one expensive lawyer's letter!

Like I said, I think it was a mistake. It involves a little more than just a letter asking for their money!!

[piggy]

yawn. No surprise at all. It was inevitable. Lawyers made some good money though.